The current system gives a home game to all division champs. Packers benefited last year by hosting game with 8-7-1 record.
This year, Atlanta or New Orleans could get home game with 7-9 record or worse.
Printable View
The current system gives a home game to all division champs. Packers benefited last year by hosting game with 8-7-1 record.
This year, Atlanta or New Orleans could get home game with 7-9 record or worse.
I like to keep a little bit of meaning behind the division championships. if it becomes a problem go to two 8-team divisions per conference.
Probably I designed the poll badly. The options may be more complicated. You could give home games and byes to top two division champs, then after that seed by record for rest of tournament.
I am ashamed of this poll. I have brought dishonor to my home.
I have no problem with division winners getting an automatic entry into the playoffs. It often makes more games meaningful during the last few weeks of the regular season, which I find more entertaining as a fan of the NFL. However, I strongly object to division winners having automatic home games in the playoffs.
The 4 division winners get in.
The 2 conference wild cards are then chosen on record and tiebreakers.
Then seed all 6 playoff teams based on same wild card record and tiebreakers...making it possible (yet unlikely) that 2 teams from the same division could earn byes as #1 and #2 if they had the 2 best records in the conference.
Here is the one item I would like to see happen that isn't usually mentioned:
The #3 seed gets to CHOOSE which of #4-6 they host in the wild card round. The higher seed of the remaining two teams would then host the other.
The #1 seed gets to CHOOSE which of the remaining 3 teams they host in the divisional round.
Yeah i think making the playoffs should be good enough for winning your division
No way should a 12-4 wildcard team have to travel to a 7-9 or 6-10 division winner
Ya, this is the idea behind the reform proposal. The division leaders continue to get automatic births, the top two finishers of those get byes. Perhaps the initial seeding is done as before. But from there the home-field advantage goes strictly by record. It still preserves value for winning division, but takes some of the luck out of rest of tourny. Homefield is too important to hand to inferior team.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Friday
My ADHD prevents me from following he rest of your post, but you look like a very nice man so you have my support.
right on.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
You too look like a very nice, drunk man
I favor an 18-games season with a 16 teams playoffs format. Winning your division should still be "the easiest way to punch your ticket into the big bang," but the playoffs should be anti-conference.
Allow a playoff committee that includes Bretsky's hero, Barry Alvarez, to determine seeding regardless of conference. This is the 21st century. The Packers should be allowed to play the Bears in a Super Bowl.
Yes, but it SOOO much better to crush the Bears and their hopeless minions in the NFCC game and then win the Lombardi Trophy a few weeks later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrion Lannister
You should do a poll. How many want to risk losing a championship to the Bears?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrion Lannister
There was many a PackerRat willing to make a deal with the devil that they would rather guarantee a Super Bowl loss than deal with a loss to the Bears for the Halas Trophy.
With the current format, chances are, we'll never get to see a Brady-P-Mann Super Bowl. In the past, there were times when one conference was stronger than the other, which led to blowouts in the SB by teams from the stronger conference.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
An integrated playoffs format would make it possible for the best two teams in the league to compete with each others for the Lombardi Trophy regardless of what conference they play in.
Besides, the NFL as a whole is now one fat homogeneous monopoly. Do we need a landmark Supreme Court decision before the league would implant an integrated playoffs system, or what?
You must really hate Manning to want to see that game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrion Lannister
I'd rather see Colts-Pats in Super Bowl XLI than Colts-Bears. Even though the Bears had a better record than both the Colts and Pats, they had Rex Fucking Grossman at QB and the NFC was somewhat inferior that season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zool
Time changed. The NFL no longer is competing with the AFL for people's money. It's just the NFL. Make it an NFL playoff without conferences.
I like it the way it is. Winning your Division should count for something.
And Peyton plays fantastic in big games like that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrion Lannister
Tyrion's opinions have changed mine; Close the thread.
Keep in mind that the reform proposals still give the juiciest reward to division winners - an automatic birth in playoffs. And the top two division winners get byes. Teams are still gonna fight to win division just as before.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Cumby
The fix is in home field advantage. You shouldn't have a 6-10 team getting home field over a 12-4 team, that is silly. It's really a minor adjustment to existing system.
http://mmqb.si.com/2014/01/02/nfl-pl...eding-problem/Quote:
It’s time to go all the way on this one, NFL. And it’s time to stop rewarding mediocrity. Just because a team wins a bad division doesn’t mean it deserves the extra treat of a home playoff game. Every win should count for something in the NFL, and homefield advantage should go to the team that won more games all season long, not just proved its mettle in the race with three weak division opponents.
A division comprised of four 6-10 teams has three times the out-of-division victories of a division comprised of a 10-6 team and three 2-14 teams.
Solid point and well taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby
I'll take it a step farther. I hate that they reseed the teams after the wild card weekend. If you are the 6th seeded team and knock off the number 3 seed you should get to play the 2 seed just like the 3rd seed would have if they won. You shouldn't punish the 6th seed and make them play the 1 seed at their place for winning.
+1. Has anyone ever played in a single elimination tournament that does this?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderDan
Are you changing your mind again?Quote:
Originally Posted by smuggler
I actually like this idea withOUT the changes Harlan proposes. I think a home game is the best reward for the Division winners. After that, all bets are off.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderDan
The NFL will not like re-seeding though, because its harder to seek tickets for possible playoff games.
Division winners should get in, but seed it all by record and I agree that once it's set, keep it that way. You don't see this re-seeding shit in March Madness (the greatest tourney ever)
ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk 16m16 minutes ago
NFC playoffs could see a 5-11 team in and a 12-4 team out http://wp.me/p14QSB-9DGy
I haven't read the Peter King article that I *KNOW* is behind this, but I can feel the weight of accumulated wisdom shifting under my feet. They are going to screw around with the playoffs within the next two years. Guaranteed.
And it will be as dumb and convoluted as the overtime rules. Plus the Cowboys will get in every year when they are 8-8, like how Notre Dame is always in a Bowl Game regardless of how terrible their team is.
NFL has always had an element of pro-wrestling to it.
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/dfef...afaa11-4_3.jpg
Worse than I feared, it will be Packer fans with the pitchforks, torches and new playoff rules in a Visio flowchart.
From above link to Pro Football Talk.Quote:
Using ESPN’s NFL Playoff Machine, I found a scenario that saw the Packers finishing at 12-4, losing the NFC North tiebreaker to the 12-4 Lions, and then losing the NFC wild card tiebreaker to the 12-4 Cowboys and 49ers.
Green Bay fans would be livid if that happened, although that scenario is a long shot. However, there are plausible scenarios that have an 11-5 team missing the playoffs while a 5-11 team wins the NFC South.
If this happened, I think a number of the votes here would change.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
However in 2010 a sub 500 team (Seattle) hosted, and beat, the Saints. That paved the way for the Packers vs Bears championship game.
how exactly did they benefit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby